Reactions to Sunday Journal "Crossroads" commentary

[mojowork_n]

I sent once and future Journal reporter Mike Nichols an e-mail the other day:

Subject: Hey, GLAD you have a job (?)

Hi,

...Late last night I happened to pick up yesterday's Crossroads section. As they always do on Sundays, the TCM channel (Turner Classic Movies) was showing silent movies. The "original" version of Cleopatra, from 1918 or 1919, was on.

It was fascinating. Besides the fact that acting for the camera hadn't yet started to evolve -- the actors and actresses were still playing to the back rows of an imaginary theater, with all the overwrought, exaggerated gestures and expressions, and the heavy clown make-up -- it was kind of obvious that their ideas about historical settings were entirely derived from classical art.

Faced with the challenge of presenting Shakespeare without an audio track, with no possibility for presenting dialogue outside the intercut white-on-black text shots, the director of the film looked like he was attempting to present one historical tableau after another, based on scenes from masterpiece paintings. (The "neo-classical school," led by Jacques Louis David and Watteau appears to have been a heavy influence.)

This is what the whole movie looked like:



Given those limitations, though, the effort came off as a pretty noble attempt. The visual compositions, scene by scene and frame by frame, showed a stylistic and thematic consistency that did bring something new to the story.

That's when I picked up your piece on Gov. Palin in Cedarburg, on the front page of the Metro Section:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=791508

Like I said, I am really glad to see your byline and hope you're on a strong rebound, professionally, but to say that yesterday's first commentary was kind of a disappointment would be an understatement.

What did your editor tell you you were supposed to be writing about? (And how?) It came off like a fore-ordained defense of motherhood, the rights of the unborn, and suburban know-nothingism, replete with overwrought adjectives and tendentious conclusions.

Instead of covering the candidate's campaign stop, or giving readers any actual information about the election, it seemed to me like you were writing about the "soap opera" that Gov. Palin's candidacy has become.

Ironically enough, Jacques Louis David is remembered as one of the foremost "propagandists" in the history of art...

It's just an observation. Nothing personal.

Best of luck,



To which Mr. Nichols graciously replied:

Thanks for the note... I did leave the staff, but they asked me to write on
a weekly basis as a contract employee of sorts. I've been doing that for three
weeks already. We'll have to agree to disagree, as they say, on Palin but I do
appreciate the e-mail...

I wrote back today to tell him:

...Sheesh, 3 weeks, huh? Goes to show how carefully I've been keeping track of goings on at the paper.

I'm writing back because I'm not sure we disagree, exactly, or at least to try to clarify what it was that irked me.

Who could possibly be against Motherhood, or how a woman who happens to be a politician makes a choice about having a baby?

I don't know about you, but I grew up with a cornfield behind the back yard (until 6th or 7th grade, when that property was "developed.")

Do you remember former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, the guy who got a little face time in the Democratic primary presidential debates? He recently wrote a piece for Counterpunch, welcoming Governor Palin's candidacy:

http://www.counterpunch.org/gravel09032008.html

A "clean slate" he suggested, a 'leader selected from obscurity by circumstance... indebted to the party bosses or special interests.'

What concerns me is that I'm not sure that the American public has had the opportunity to meet that person, the independent Alaskan that former Senator Gravel was writing about.

The Governor from Alaska is being shielded from giving personal inteviews. Even the mouth-breathing move-their-lips-when-they-type news crew at AOL noticed:

{Gov. Sarah Palin is}...sticking to a greatest hits version of her convention speech on the campaign trail and steering clear of questions until she's comfortable enough for a hand-picked interviewer later this week.

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/palin-sticks-to-script-on-campaign-trail/167518?icid=100214839x1208928968x1200548995

That's the irksome, nagging complaint I have.

I'm making a strong distinction here between the Governor, Sarah Palin the individual, and the speech reader at the Republican National Convention, whom we've been seeing at other campaign stops. (One of which you covered.)

When it was time to announce a Republican candidate for vice-president, most of those speeches and recent talking points had already been scripted, I'm pretty sure. Who better to deliver them -- to be cast in the role -- than the favorite choice of that always ideologically driven culture warrior, the Great Gas Bag himself -- Rush Limbaugh? (Karl Rove's radio voice and public personna.)

That distinction was what struck me, particularly, while I was watching that 1919 silent movie, "Cleopatra," and picked up your Sunday news piece.

While the imaginitive framework and historical perspective of early 20th century film makers may still have been dominated by the conventions of the theater, and archetypes from Classical art, the popular imagination, today, is dominated by market branding, instant consumer identification and buying-decisions-made-easy. A succession of sound bites and images designed to appeal to viewers from a target demographic are carefully chosen and edited, for maximum impact on the commercial sponsor's sales bottom line.

In her own way, the current Governor of Alaska has become a "reality TV" celebrity, an appealing media superstar, just like Kelly Clarkson and Rueben Studdard before her. Or, for that matter, like our own current Commander-in-Chief, who was sold to the public as 'someone you'd like to have a beer with.' For better or for worse, the national media has continued to maintain a 'hands-off' protective smokescreen around our President. (Whether it was 'he choked on a pretzel,' or 'he was a little confused at the Beijing Olympics,' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHPZBNuYPBo or 'he couldn't possibly have known about the attempted forgery http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/12/daily-show-ron-suskind-talks-liars-impeachment/ to justify the invasion of Iraq...)

Before you dismiss those comparisons, consider some of the substantive and 'serious' arguments put forth on behalf of Sarah Palin's leadership qualifications and bona fides on foreign policy.

As Stephen Colbert pointed out, 'If it’s correct that Alaska’s closer proximity to Russia than anywhere else in the US qualifies as solid foreign policy experience, then Mt. McKinley's presence in Alaska as the highest mountain (and closest point to outer space) means that Sarah Palin has solid qualifications in space exploration policy, and she should be appointed head of N.A.S.A...' (Or, maybe, First Ambassador to the Ferenghi Trade Federation, should they ever fly down to introduce themselves to us, and begin to barter...)

Your column in Sunday's paper was like the telescope mirror image of that point of view. Because she has a right to be a Mom, and a politician, and because she defends traditional viewpoints on the rights of the pre-born (that's actually O.K., by me; I'm not a Catholic or an evangelical, but I've no problem with people who can't abide abortion) -- those points of view qualify her to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

In the Victorian era, the producer and director of a theatrical production jerked people's strings and got them to identify with a character by conflating theatrical conventions with widely recognized artistic imagery. Almost a hundred years later, we're light years ahead with the accuracy and authenticity of historical recreations and documentaries, but has the stagecraft, and manipulation of an audience, really changed that much?

When the Journal Sentinel takes a 'local news' and 'local interest' only approach to covering national affairs:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=186x26297

and the paper is forced to market the news as a commodity (with waving pom-poms at Republican campaign stops) in order to appeal to a certain target demographic, I get really concerned about our country's future.

I think I know how we've gotten into our current mess, but I don't see any way out of it, if things keep on as they are.